Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lamberton, 899 P.2d 939.

40 citing documents.

State Ex Rel Mitchell v. Hon. palmer/durand 546 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2024
State Ex Rel Mitchell v. Hon. palmer/durand 546 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2024
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“[S]tatutes and [court] rules cannot eliminate or narrow rights guaranteed by the state constitution.”).
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fay, 251 Ariz. at 542 ¶ 27 (“[w]hile it is true that a major purpose of the VBR is to give victims the right to be heard at ‘criminal proceedings,’ we cannot conclude that victims are ‘parties’ with the right to file their own petitions for review.” ()).
Beth Fay v. Hon. fox/state/jordan Hanson 494 P.3d 1105 Ariz. 2021
Beth Fay v. Hon. fox/state/jordan Hanson 494 P.3d 1105 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
which contravenes its provisions must fall.’” W. Devcor, –31 (1991) (); (stating that “the implementing statutes and [court] rules cannot eliminate or narrow rights guaranteed by the state constitution”); (finding legislative amendment to A.R.S.
E.H. v. . Hon. slayton/ccao/conlee 429 P.3d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
E.H. v. . Hon. slayton/ccao/conlee 429 P.3d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 8 (App. 2015); see also, e.g., A.R.S.
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, as noted two decades ago in a different context, “the VBR and the VRIA give victims the right to participate and be notified of certain criminal proceedings.”
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, as noted two decades ago in a different context, “the VBR and the VRIA give victims the right to participate and be notified of certain criminal proceedings.”
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And as our supreme court held in State v. Lamberton, “neither the VBR nor the VRIA gives victims a right to control the proceedings, to plead defenses, or to examine or cross-examine witnesses; the VBR and the VRIA give victims the right to participate and be notified of certain criminal proceedings.” , ¶¶ 15-17 , (holding that though victims deserve to be heard and to receive fair treatment in criminal cases, they may not make sentencing recommendations to the jury).
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
6 guaranteed by the state constitution‟”), n.5, n.5 (1992) (legislature has power to “„define, implement, preserve and protect‟” victims‟ rights but not “to redefine the scope of those rights”), quoting Ariz. Const., art. II, § 2.1(D)
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
sentencing.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(4); (recognizing that state statute and court rule define criminal proceeding as “matters before the trial court”).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Roscoe, 185 Ariz. at 72-73 , 912 P.2d at 1301-02 .
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
Moreover, while the motion was pending, the Hospital was very much “directly interested in the subject matter of the suit____”
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 7 , to support their contention.
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
(“[T]he implementing statutes and [court] rules cannot eliminate or narrow rights guaranteed by the state constitution.”); see also Marquez v. *73 Rwpid Harvest Co., 1 Ariz.App.